British and Irish Lions Tour: Referee Chat

[TRF_heineken]

Well well well.

I'm stunned. Flabbergasted!

Who would have thunk that a French referee would shaft the All Blacks?

Perhaps now World Rugby will maybe take a stance with Poite. Again really bad calls made by Poite in a very serious match. And you have to say that George Ayoub the TMO was also rather dreadful (but then again, us SH guys are used to that by now as he makes awful calls nearly in every match he's the TMO). The only guy missing from making this worse would have been Shaun Veldsman...

My question is that if NZ got the penalty, would the result really have changed as much? Barritt was off with his goal kicking...

 

[MikeTheNative]

Meanwhile, it seems no one talks about the penalty wrongly awarded to the ABs at the start of the match. It was entirely kickable, he just missed.

Sure the ref made some mistakes, but they went both ways. The fact that the Lions kickers actually get the ball between the posts when given the chance... can't blame the ref for that!


[EDIT] I've never really even heard of this topic before... but several people have now suggested there might be match fixing going on. (Mainly from people who are soccer/cricket fans first, rugby fans second to be fair) It's worrying though. Even if there's absolutely no substance to it, if that perception grows things could get nasty.

I agree people often forget to take their bias cap off and just see the calls going against them not for them. I did see on r/rugbyunion where Kieran Read was borderline offside at the kick off but it's ignored by a number of people like all the other decisions that went their way. Rugby is a complicated game so a ref will always make mistakes. I understand debating a decision whether it should have gone the other way but frankly calling a referee biased is ridiculous and you just look petty.

 

[amz]

I'll just leave it here:
http://rugbyreferee.net/2017/07/09/...that-incident-and-why-the-law-needs-changing/

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Well spotted. Cheating ABs . There was a similar incident in the 1st or 2nd test went un-penalized. I still think the response has been reasonably "who gives a crap" from most quarters. Entirely disappointing we ended with a hung series.

I mean obviously all teams cheat but sometimes we forget that new Zealand are successful not only through scoring tries. Ut

Silence is golden sometimes and the Lions fans are just as culpable as anyone else in that regard.
Nobody has raised the point from the Lions camp that there was a third jumper in the final penalty/not penalty call and the third jumper was never anywhere near the ball, it was a Lion whose sole mission was to impede Read's access to the ball.
That was what the blokes in the pub thought the penalty was for, not an accidental offside. They were shouting "interference" and "Shepherding".
Poite , as for so many other things in the game that could have gone either way, chose to ignore it.
C'est la vie for the AB's.
We'll get over it.
Then he sauntered off for cafe au lait and croissant, did he even blow the final whistle?
Lassez faire?
Thats the way the baguette crumbles.

Maybe he was concerned about giving a decision that would have settled the contest?
I don't know.
I don't care, I'm ok with the outcome.
I like the Lions as a concept and this time they got it pretty well right.
They were strong, proud and fierce.
One more point in the final test and they would have got it damn near perfect.
The Lions MUST be competitive if they are to garner the collective feelings of support they must have from the 4 different nations they come from.

To argue a position about refereeing decisions taking the game away from you is churlish, regardless of which side you were on.
Referee's have a tough job and French referees are ambiguous and random at the best of times.
It tends to even out.
Just like the series.

I dont disagree with what you posted, of course as always there were decisions which went both for and against both sides but the difference is the lions fans here and british media aren't the ones claiming they were shafted. Yes a penalty could have been awarded but equally the game would have panned out differently had the deliberate knock on with twenty minutes to go been addressed property.

On a separate note did anyone get a clear look.at the clearout after which sexton had to go off for a hia? It was probably fine but the camera angles werent too good and at the time I wanted to see it again

 

[Nubiwan]

I imagine the people originating such speculation are just hangers on who cannot accept that the All-Blacks didn't win.

Au contraire mon ami, Poite. I am a Lions Supporter. Totally, totally amazed by the on field decision. So need to explore why he change his mind completely. Almost like he went TMO to buy more time to change his mind. Its one of the more bizarre things you will see in the last minute of a real big test. More bizarre than the Joubert thing because, Joubert can be forgiven for just not seeing who knocked the ball forward, and stood by his decision, and had no TMO recourse anyway. Joubert sprinting off - well, that's just wierd.

After Poite's thing, I was sitting in my chair thinking - WTF just happened. IMHO, had he reversed his decision against the Lions, he'd likely never ref another test, and this place would have rightly gone ballistic. Terrible effort by the ref. Even if I agree with his accidental offside. Its not the point.

 

[Nubiwan]

I mean obviously all teams cheat but sometimes we forget that new Zealand are successful not only through scoring tries. Ut


I dont disagree with what you posted, of course as always there were decisions which went both for and against both sides but the difference is the lions fans here and british media aren't the ones claiming they were shafted. Yes a penalty could have been awarded but equally the game would have panned out differently had the deliberate knock on with twenty minutes to go been addressed property.

On a separate note did anyone get a clear look.at the clearout after which sexton had to go off for a hia? It was probably fine but the camera angles werent too good and at the time I wanted to see it again

Sexton took a pretty good beating. Be interesting to see a few of the follow throughs he took. Good on him for staying around. Thought the ankle was the end of it.

 

[The Jones Boy]

...the difference is the lions fans here and british media aren't the ones claiming they were shafted. Yes a penalty could have been awarded ...

Ok, so let us imagine the Lions are 20 metres out from the AB try line with 90 seconds to go, and the French ref awards a penalty to the Lions. It looks nailed on.
Then after a long delay during which time he talks to the AB captain, and the linesman, and the TMO and watches replays, then comes back and awards the Lions a scrum feed and they go wide and get close but get pushed into touch.
Can you imagine the uproar we would be hearing from the Lions fans, and arguably rightly so.
It's a rare day a ref changes a penalty decision and how often when the TMO is consulted on this kind of basis?
It was an odd thing.
Personally, I don't care.
I think a draw is fine for both teams.
However, when you are granted a penalty and then something strange and out of the ordinary happens that breaks with protocols and procedures, of course it's going to create a storm of words and angry exchanges.
It's not a usual process.
I don't care about it, but i can see that other folk might feel aggrieved for sure.
The ref was very random throughout the game.
I'm not sure he is fit to be a ref at this standard.
Early in the game I saw him give a penalty against Warburton for what looked like a perfectly good turnover. I couldn't work that out.
Then I saw him give a penalty against the AB's for a high tackle that never got anywhere near the opponents head or neck, it came through the middle of the chest.
It wasn't a great refereeing performance but he seemed equally lousy on both sides.

 

[The Jones Boy]

Sexton took a pretty good beating. Be interesting to see a few of the follow throughs he took. Good on him for staying around. Thought the ankle was the end of it.

Sexton proved himself to be a tough customer. He battled through knocks and continued to deliver.

 

[Which Tyler]

@TheJonesBoy what protocols were broken?
TMO was called in to rule on foul play (contact in the air).
TMO ruled on that (wrongly IMO, but hey, that seems to be a difference in interpretation between the hemispheres).
Ref and TJ then decide offside was accidental, without any TMO input.

 

[valley commando]

The thing that pleases me most about the conclusion of this series is that I no longer have to put up with these french refs. They make me not enjoy watching rugby.

Thats because you are more usually subjected to crap ref's down there and you can't cope with a decent one

 

[Ospervat]

Well well well.

I'm stunned. Flabbergasted!

Who would have thunk that a French referee would shaft the All Blacks?

Perhaps now World Rugby will maybe take a stance with Poite. Again really bad calls made by Poite in a very serious match. And you have to say that George Ayoub the TMO was also rather dreadful (but then again, us SH guys are used to that by now as he makes awful calls nearly in every match he's the TMO). The only guy missing from making this worse would have been Shaun Veldsman...

My question is that if NZ got the penalty, would the result really have changed as much? Barritt was off with his goal kicking...

I have never had much faith in Poite as a top class referee and have regularly been an outspoken critic on his ability. He has been involved in more controversial decisions in recent times than any other international referee that I can think of. I suspect he just doesn't have the "big match command & control" when under pressure.

Kiwis can feel dissatisfied not with the decision but the manner in which it was made.

Kiwis should also remember they have gained match winning advantages from some of Poite's dubious decisions in the past- probably most notably the first yellow to Bismarck for his legal tackle on Carter (Sept 2013) which ultimately led to the red and SA playing half a game with 14.

Swings and roundabouts - it shouldn't happen but it does.

 

[Five Meters Out]

I have never had much faith in Poite as a top class referee and have regularly been an outspoken critic on his ability. He has been involved in more controversial decisions in recent times than any other international referee that I can think of. I suspect he just doesn't have the "big match command & control" when under pressure.

Kiwis can feel dissatisfied not with the decision but the manner in which it was made.

Kiwis should also remember they have gained match winning advantages from some of Poite's dubious decisions in the past- probably most notably the first yellow to Bismarck for his legal tackle on Carter (Sept 2013) which ultimately led to the red and SA playing half a game with 14.

Swings and roundabouts - it shouldn't happen but it does.

This is a fair post Ospervat. A couple of points though -
It's a dumb law (just like the tackling the man when he jumps to take the pass), but a law nevertheless and he ruled it the correct way........then changed his mind......90 seconds from the end of a three Test AB v Lions Series, that comes around every 12 years.
There is no comparison to some game in 2013, that I can barely recall.
There is a British writer Mark Reason (who says he had a famous father) who now lives in NZ. When the Refs were announced he went on and on about them and how great they were going to be, unlike Nigel Owen, the Aussie Refs and SA Refs. According to Reason these French refs would be brilliant.
Well they weren't "brilliant". In this final Test they were largely incompetent. Missing obvious infringements from both sides, reviewing inconsistently and capping it off with a howler of such proportions that surely it will be in the top three "Ref stuff ups" of all time, in any sport.

 

[Nubiwan]

Ok, so let us imagine the Lions are 20 metres out from the AB try line with 90 seconds to go, and the French ref awards a penalty to the Lions. It looks nailed on.
Then after a long delay during which time he talks to the AB captain, and the linesman, and the TMO and watches replays, then comes back and awards the Lions a scrum feed and they go wide and get close but get pushed into touch.
Can you imagine the uproar we would be hearing from the Lions fans, and arguably rightly so.
It's a rare day a ref changes a penalty decision and how often when the TMO is consulted on this kind of basis?
It was an odd thing.
Personally, I don't care.
I think a draw is fine for both teams.
However, when you are granted a penalty and then something strange and out of the ordinary happens that breaks with protocols and procedures, of course it's going to create a storm of words and angry exchanges.
It's not a usual process.
I don't care about it, but i can see that other folk might feel aggrieved for sure.
The ref was very random throughout the game.
I'm not sure he is fit to be a ref at this standard.
Early in the game I saw him give a penalty against Warburton for what looked like a perfectly good turnover. I couldn't work that out.
Then I saw him give a penalty against the AB's for a high tackle that never got anywhere near the opponents head or neck, it came through the middle of the chest.
It wasn't a great refereeing performance but he seemed equally lousy on both sides.

I think the refereeing has been marginal at best. Not sure even the best referees get it all correct in fairness. Well, they just can't, the way we scrutinize these days.

Telling you, Poite calls that shambols 180 turnaround against the Lions, he would struggle to get further appointments. Cue the 27th Valley Girl dislike.

 

[The Jones Boy]

@TheJonesBoy what protocols were broken?
TMO was called in to rule on foul play (contact in the air).
TMO ruled on that (wrongly IMO, but hey, that seems to be a difference in interpretation between the hemispheres).
Ref and TJ then decide offside was accidental, without any TMO input.

Ref calls a clear penalty and the decision is nothing to do with foul play.
He then has a discussion with Warburton, then the touch judge and then goes to the TMO.
No foul play is whats offered from the TMO, confirming the referees original decision.
Then he has a discussion with the touch judge and comes up with another decision, a scrum feed.


From Smart Cooky.

"First, you cannot refer a non foul play penalty to the TMO. That was a complete departure from TMO protocol.

Second. That was NOT accidental offside. The Lions player Liam Williams played at the ball. It is only accidental if the ball strikes the player."

I hope that answers your question, because I'm over this issue.
Yes AB fans and neutrals have good grounds for bemoaning the ref's decision however...
A draw is a result, it's one of three potential results, I never thought it would be the result at the end of the game and I'm ok with it.
I didn't want to end the game winning on a ref'decision like the Lions did in the 2nd test.
I wanted to see the AB's win it outright and the number of tries and kicks they left on the park , they could have done that comfortably (with 15 men on the park) as they were the better attacking team by some margin, 2 tries to nil and the bombed tries tell us that, but they didn't finish their opportunities, they were sloppy, and then they gave away too many penalties and the all Lions kickers are superior in Daly, Farrell and Sexton (not to mention Halfpenny) and the Lions hung in there, kept in contact and crawled back into the match so the AB's ultimately got what they deserved.
I like the Lions as a concept and these Lions were strong and effective, their defence was excellent and going forward they have added to the 'pride' and the quality of the brand.
The AB's are alright for a drawn series and an unbroken string of 40 undefeated matches at Eden Park.

They had three kids on the park in the form of ALB, Laumape and J. Barrett. It was a gamble and it almost paid off.
No Crotty or particularly SBW really hurt our attacking potential againt the rush defence.
It's easy to say your piece in retrospect and this is no attack on Hansen, for me I would have liked to see Moala get a run at the Lions.
When you are facing a rush defence, it really helps if you have a player like SBW who generally requires two tacklers to bring down, and he is a master of the offload, so blokes like BB and Crotty or ALB can take the offload and punch the gap and go in search of wingers etc.
With SBW out and no big lump like Nonu to play that role our greenhorn little guys struggled with the rush defence.
Jonathan Davies had a marvellous game wreaking havoc in this area a couple of times and for a big lad he can shift through the gears and he has a sharp talent for anticipation for a chance, he is a delight to watch, a very dangerous player.
So in the light of the kids in the backline, I'm happy with the outcome. The Lions perserverance and sharpshooting with the boot deserved more than a close defeat from a refereeing decision.
The AB's could have closed out the game in the first half if they had finished more clinically and BB had a better day with the boot.
Plenty of areas to improve upon.
It was an excellent learning curve to take forward for the future battles and the RWC in Japan.

 

[Which Tyler]

Well, first of all, he refers to the TMO for fould play - tackling a man in the air is foul play, and a perfectly acceptable use of the TMO.
http://rugbyreferee.net/2017/07/09/...that-incident-and-why-the-law-needs-changing/

After the whistle goes, there doesn't appear to be any AR input from Jaco Peyper, but some questions from Lions players. Romain asks "George, can we check 'in the air'? – an informal review at this stage. After another replay (presumably on stadium screen too), Read is present with RP as is Sam Warburton. Then play is formally stopped for a review we assume at Romain's instigation. Romain says "We're checking the challenge in the air"

As you say - he then has a chat with the touch judge - about something he can't refer to the TMO (though he is allowed to see on the big screen during replays); and changes his mind to accidental offside.
That Smarty Cooky's opinion is that the offside wasn't accidental is irrelevant to this - it's an opinion, and one that can viably go either way. Romain and Jerome, between them, disagree with SC. They are notonly entitled, but actively encouraged to consult and come to a decision, and they are most certainly not bound by Romain's initial penalty, or his first view of the replays.

Personally, I don't think there's grounds for complaint over the decision reached here - nor would I if it were a penalty againt the Lions, or a penalty against the ABs; all are fair decisions based on the available evidence. Ref could have communicated better with the captains, but his decision is fair, and the protocols were followed - which is the bit I called you on. That SC disagrees on the latter just means that SC is wrong; presumably he didn't hear the words "We're checking the challenge in the air" - or thinks that Romain is outright lying.

ETA: Oh, and players acting like chavs really, really needs to stop, from all teams.

 

[ncurd]

That article is an excellent bit of analysis by the writers, the comments are pretty enlightening to.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Well, first of all, he refers to the TMO for fould play - tackling a man in the air is foul play, and a perfectly acceptable use of the TMO.
http://rugbyreferee.net/2017/07/09/...that-incident-and-why-the-law-needs-changing/


As you say - he then has a chat with the touch judge - about something he can't refer to the TMO (though he is allowed to see on the big screen during replays); and changes his mind to accidental offside.
That Smarty Cooky's opinion is that the offside wasn't accidental is irrelevant to this - it's an opinion, and one that can viably go either way. Romain and Jerome, between them, disagree with SC. They are notonly entitled, but actively encouraged to consult and come to a decision, and they are most certainly not bound by Romain's initial penalty, or his first view of the replays.

Personally, I don't think there's grounds for complaint over the decision reached here - nor would I if it were a penalty againt the Lions, or a penalty against the ABs; all are fair decisions based on the available evidence. Ref could have communicated better with the captains, but his decision is fair, and the protocols were followed - which is the bit I called you on. That SC disagrees on the latter just means that SC is wrong; presumably he didn't hear the words "We're checking the challenge in the air" - or thinks that Romain is outright lying.

ETA: Oh, and players acting like chavs really, really needs to stop, from all teams.

I think the issue is more on why did Poite overturn his original decision. If it wasn't allowed to be reviewed, then why change it? He went to the TMO for foul play, and between the ref, his assistants and the TMO they concluded there wasn't any foul play. So Poite should have gone back to the original offence, for which he gave a penalty. He can't now, based on the TV footage provided to him for something else he had to review, go and change his original call. And Garces shouldn't have interfered either. Garces didn't seem to be bothered when Poite gave the penalty originally, and only after there was a review, he had a chat with Poite.

It's just again the indecision and sticking to what is happening in front of you and acting accordingly that makes this so damn frustrating.

And yet again, Poite has managed to become the centre of attention, and draw away most of the hype and discussions of the match itself.

 

[ncurd]

I suggest reading the article.

The TMO himself did not interfere and the refferal to him was nothing to do with it.

According to what is written in that article Garces had every right to interfere and Poite had every right to listen to him and reverse his decision.


Now we can argue about the farcical way it went down but ultimately the correct decision was made (if the articles analysis is correct and I can't dispute what they've said). However that doesn't seam to be the reason people their arms up in the air is because the decision was reversed that may of affected the outcome of the game in the Lions favour.

Honestly I know its easy to say otherwise but I don't think I'd still be *****ing about a correct decision being made 4 days after the event....

 

[TRF_heineken]

I suggest reading the article.

The TMO himself did not interfere and the refferal to him was nothing to do with it.

According to what is written in that article Garces had every right to interfere and Poite had every right to listen to him and reverse his decision.


Now we can argue about the farcical way it went down but ultimately the correct decision was made (if the articles analysis is correct and I can't dispute what they've said). However that doesn't seam to be the reason people their arms up in the air is because the decision was reversed that may of affected the outcome of the game in the Lions favour.

Honestly I know its easy to say otherwise but I don't think I'd still be *****ing about a correct decision being made 4 days after the event....

True, and I agree that in the end the correct call was made. And I still stand by my comment that I don't think the penalty would have been kicked over as Barritt was terrible with his goal kicking.

But yeah. Poite seems to do this kind of thing over and over and over in very vital games... And the worst of it all, was in the end, he didn't make the correct call, Garces did...

 

[Which Tyler]

I think the issue is more on why did Poite overturn his original decision. If it wasn't allowed to be reviewed, then why change it? He went to the TMO for foul play, and between the ref, his assistants and the TMO they concluded there wasn't any foul play. So Poite should have gone back to the original offence, for which he gave a penalty. He can't now, based on the TV footage provided to him for something else he had to review, go and change his original call. And Garces shouldn't have interfered either. Garces didn't seem to be bothered when Poite gave the penalty originally, and only after there was a review, he had a chat with Poite.

It's just again the indecision and sticking to what is happening in front of you and acting accordingly that makes this so damn frustrating.

And yet again, Poite has managed to become the centre of attention, and draw away most of the hype and discussions of the match itself.

Well, he doesn't have to go back to the original offence, and he is allowed to see replays, and he is allowed to change his mind, whether from replays or TJ* assistance; and he certainly is allowed (well, actively encouraged) to discuss things with his TJ. What he's not allowed to do is to refer playing the ball whilst offside to the TMO - and he didn't refer that to the TMO (which is where I jumped into a discussion I'd been otherwise leaving well alone).
I've no idea wheter Garces was bothered about it before his active interjection - I've not seen anything where I could hear his voice, let alone understand what he was saying (they'd almost certainly have communicated with each other in French - as they often do at club and international level).

For my money, he should have played advantage - though we don't know what initial responce he got from the TMO after asking the in-play question; and for my (NH) money, he should have pinged the challenge in the air; where we tend to look more at hip height to judge fair contest. Either way, I think that this is one of those occassions where there are many right answers, and none of them particularly more compelling than any other, so play on, scrum black seems the best option. This is far from the first time that a ref has changed his mind, either on video evidence or after discussion with the TJ.

Personally, I feel the only real issue here (other than perhaps the law being an ass) is how the process was relayed to the players and pundits - who didn't get access to Garces' microphone (not that the pundits were likely listening anyway).

I feel that discussing the case, identiying the right decision, but then ignoring it because the whistle's already been blown is far, far worse; than discussing it, reaching the right decision, and acting on that. For the record, I felt the same when Bath were screwed a year or two back when the TJ signalled the ref, who blew for foul play, we took the snap drop-goal knowing we had a second chance, and the penalty never being awarded as review showed that teh TJ was wrong. That also had the element of farce, and the right decision was reached.


* Yes, I know they're Assistant Referees these days, but some habits die hard, sometimes deliberately.